The reason the US became... whatever it is now, is that too many Republicans thought 'the worst of us is preferable to the best of them'. Well, "Susan Collins vs a cheating chud with a SS tatoo" is possibly the closest we’ll ever get to a reversed situation. I would much rather have a Democrat than a Republican, but I would not pick *any* Democrat over *any* Republican; I've seen where that logic leads.
I understand why reasonnable people would disagree, of course, I'd only ask where you would draw the line if you do not draw it here.
This does not really seem necessarily a black mark against Senator Collins: "Collins voted to convict Trump of impeachment the second time but not the first," Maybe it's just vaguely possible she thought the second impeachment was warranted but not the first. That would just be judgment, not simply knee jerk lock step voting.
1. My personal rule is that I don't vote for bad people. No one could convince me to vote for Trump and no one would be able to convince me to vote for either Paxton or Platner. Some people are just unfit for office.
2. The bad person's opponent still has to earn my vote because otherwise I'll write someone in or stay home. If your opponent really is a creep, you the candidate have to show that you understand it too - by making a serious effort to reach across the aisle. Collins has done a better job of that than Talarico has. Voting to remove a president of your own party > being seen eating barbecue
For example, I (would like to) think Dan McLaughlin would be saying something different if Paxton's opponent were someone like Kyrsten Sinema instead of Talarico. Talarico should be willing to pledge to oppose efforts to change the Supreme Court.
Talarico does oppose packing the Supreme Court, and actually: So does Platner. This is why I think it won’t happen: It’s something Democrats talk about to fire up their base but they back down the second their words matter because the plan is extremely unpopular.
It's typical how McLaughlin claims the Democrats want to "shatter the American constitutional system" while ignoring the fact Trump is trying to do just that. Oh, I fogot: Trump is trying to restore American values. Whatever. The projection syndrome by Republicans is alive and well.....
Did you ever see that Mitchell and Webb skit (https://youtu.be/3ss-59fi4nM?si=LOaz5RKUgvhj3qzG), where they're talking about "the Apprentice", and how they pitch it so that viewers will watch it ironically, knowing they're smarter than the show. In that sketch Webb's character asks how the ironic viewers show up in the ratings, and Mitchell replies they show up the same as the idiots.
My point being, is that people who vote for Platner because, like you, they're holding their nose and tactically rallying against Trump, come out exactly the same as those who think, "hey, it's so cool that we can finally get Nazi tattoos"! Or to put it another way, would you be happy having a random Platner voter round to your house, talking to your neighbours about how you two agree on so much?
This piece is better than Jeff's first piece on Platner. Inadvertently, he makes a better case for Collins: the complexity unhinged characterizations of Collins from the left. They are a good snapshot into the mind of Platner and his ilk.
This one has a little bit more salience than usual when the charge gets bandied about--he's cited the Gospel of Thomas, one of the Gnostic Gospels that the historic church has recognized as spurious, to support some of his more progressive positions.
Now, this is still a bit hypocritical of McLaughlin if he, say, would vote for a Mormon Republican (note: I like Mormons, but the origins of the Book of Mormon are...dubious at best), but it's not quite the usual "you disagree with me about how to interpret the Bible."
I see Platner as a kind of recycled Jon Fetterman. Progressives were so happy Fetterman was elected but then once he wasn't on board with the Left's broad "everything Israel does is bad and you have to understand where Hamas is coming from" plank, a lot of progressives got really mad at him. Sometimes you don't get the votes out of a public official that you would expect (this has happened time and time again with SCOTUS justices; who the president nominates does not dictate how that justice will rule on a case) and it's entirely possible Platner will break with the left wing if elected, just like Collins voted to convict Trump of impeachment.
Dan McLaughlin is a great writer, one of NR's better ones currently, but his statement is of course hyperbole. But he is not wrong in that Talorico is trying to teach Christians false things about their faith. I identify as a lapsed Catholic, and as an English/American literature graduate student, so Talorico really bothers me. I can see someone cherry picking quotes from a text to bolster an argument from miles away. For him to do that in Texas is absurd, they know what's in the Bible down there.
Dillon: Are you sure about Texans Bible knowledge? They seem to ignore Jesus's teachings about helping the poor and loving your neighbor constantly.....
I'm sure they are doing some helping of the poor and some loving of their neighbors, but if you want someone who is trying to love his neighbors constantly, look no further than Platner, what with the sexting and all!
What leans me Collins is that, while Trump personally couldn't be worse, the situation could be. Courts could be more deferential. Indeed, impossible as it may seem, Congress could be more deferential. I think people don't take time in these comparisons to look at Collins's voting record as an aspect of her character. They should. It is. She has been reneging on her political and civic duty as a member of Congress to guard its prerogatives against an imperialist President. That's a character issue.
But. Trump really has been stopped from a lot of crap, and we need to be prepared for a post-Trump world. That includes, like the state GOPers who refuse to gerrymander, maybe taking a hit for the good of civic decency.
A calm, articulate, hate and hyperbole-free 60 second campaign ad sans idiocy or even a good conspiracy theory - and with fully zipped trousers to boot?!
Are you actually entertaining the notion that *this* guy might somehow be qualified for a seat in the U.S. Senate and that the good people of Maine should think about voting for *him* rather than that other nut?
Are *you* nuts?
That's the kind of hopium-smoking self-delusional wishcasting that could be the very death of 21st century American politics as we know it if somehow it ever caught on to any degree and started to spread, and which would, among countless other malign consequences, likely put a whole lot of otherwise good and decent comedians out of work for lack of material.
Get a grip, Jeff. That's just the kind of voting against one's own self-interest that got us all here in the first place.
FWIW, I'd vote for Collins if I could.
The reason the US became... whatever it is now, is that too many Republicans thought 'the worst of us is preferable to the best of them'. Well, "Susan Collins vs a cheating chud with a SS tatoo" is possibly the closest we’ll ever get to a reversed situation. I would much rather have a Democrat than a Republican, but I would not pick *any* Democrat over *any* Republican; I've seen where that logic leads.
I understand why reasonnable people would disagree, of course, I'd only ask where you would draw the line if you do not draw it here.
If we had a different president or if I thought Democrats could win the Senate without Maine, I’d probably reach a different conclusion.
This does not really seem necessarily a black mark against Senator Collins: "Collins voted to convict Trump of impeachment the second time but not the first," Maybe it's just vaguely possible she thought the second impeachment was warranted but not the first. That would just be judgment, not simply knee jerk lock step voting.
Yes that was her judgement, I just strongly disagree. I’m accusing her of poor judgement there, not fealty.
I agree, but it is a black mark that it's almost the only thing you could say about her voting recording against Trump.
She is not the worst of the GOP Congress by a long shot, but the bar there is extremely low.
This substack became a thesis on moral relativism so gradually I didn't even notice!
"convict Trump of impeachment"
Just "impeach", buddy
1. My personal rule is that I don't vote for bad people. No one could convince me to vote for Trump and no one would be able to convince me to vote for either Paxton or Platner. Some people are just unfit for office.
2. The bad person's opponent still has to earn my vote because otherwise I'll write someone in or stay home. If your opponent really is a creep, you the candidate have to show that you understand it too - by making a serious effort to reach across the aisle. Collins has done a better job of that than Talarico has. Voting to remove a president of your own party > being seen eating barbecue
For example, I (would like to) think Dan McLaughlin would be saying something different if Paxton's opponent were someone like Kyrsten Sinema instead of Talarico. Talarico should be willing to pledge to oppose efforts to change the Supreme Court.
Talarico does oppose packing the Supreme Court, and actually: So does Platner. This is why I think it won’t happen: It’s something Democrats talk about to fire up their base but they back down the second their words matter because the plan is extremely unpopular.
It's typical how McLaughlin claims the Democrats want to "shatter the American constitutional system" while ignoring the fact Trump is trying to do just that. Oh, I fogot: Trump is trying to restore American values. Whatever. The projection syndrome by Republicans is alive and well.....
Did you ever see that Mitchell and Webb skit (https://youtu.be/3ss-59fi4nM?si=LOaz5RKUgvhj3qzG), where they're talking about "the Apprentice", and how they pitch it so that viewers will watch it ironically, knowing they're smarter than the show. In that sketch Webb's character asks how the ironic viewers show up in the ratings, and Mitchell replies they show up the same as the idiots.
My point being, is that people who vote for Platner because, like you, they're holding their nose and tactically rallying against Trump, come out exactly the same as those who think, "hey, it's so cool that we can finally get Nazi tattoos"! Or to put it another way, would you be happy having a random Platner voter round to your house, talking to your neighbours about how you two agree on so much?
Shaun: Thanks for the link!
This piece is better than Jeff's first piece on Platner. Inadvertently, he makes a better case for Collins: the complexity unhinged characterizations of Collins from the left. They are a good snapshot into the mind of Platner and his ilk.
RE: Talarico being a heretic
This one has a little bit more salience than usual when the charge gets bandied about--he's cited the Gospel of Thomas, one of the Gnostic Gospels that the historic church has recognized as spurious, to support some of his more progressive positions.
Now, this is still a bit hypocritical of McLaughlin if he, say, would vote for a Mormon Republican (note: I like Mormons, but the origins of the Book of Mormon are...dubious at best), but it's not quite the usual "you disagree with me about how to interpret the Bible."
> And we should try hard to avoid situations in which we’re forced to vote for the lesser of two evils.
Definitely! I would love a system in which there are (say) 4 candidates, and we rank them in order of preference.
Sure, you might just end up with 4 clowns instead of 2. But at least the discourse about "who's the least-bad?" would be more sophisticated.
Good point Jeff: Gov. Janet Mills is still on the ballot! Vote for her Democrats!
I see Platner as a kind of recycled Jon Fetterman. Progressives were so happy Fetterman was elected but then once he wasn't on board with the Left's broad "everything Israel does is bad and you have to understand where Hamas is coming from" plank, a lot of progressives got really mad at him. Sometimes you don't get the votes out of a public official that you would expect (this has happened time and time again with SCOTUS justices; who the president nominates does not dictate how that justice will rule on a case) and it's entirely possible Platner will break with the left wing if elected, just like Collins voted to convict Trump of impeachment.
Dan McLaughlin is a great writer, one of NR's better ones currently, but his statement is of course hyperbole. But he is not wrong in that Talorico is trying to teach Christians false things about their faith. I identify as a lapsed Catholic, and as an English/American literature graduate student, so Talorico really bothers me. I can see someone cherry picking quotes from a text to bolster an argument from miles away. For him to do that in Texas is absurd, they know what's in the Bible down there.
Dillon: Are you sure about Texans Bible knowledge? They seem to ignore Jesus's teachings about helping the poor and loving your neighbor constantly.....
LOL, I'm changing my handle to DillonDylan.
I'm sure they are doing some helping of the poor and some loving of their neighbors, but if you want someone who is trying to love his neighbors constantly, look no further than Platner, what with the sexting and all!
But you're okay with them worshipping Donald Trump as their Lord and Savior? Come on.
No, I'm not OK with that you silly goose.
That's faze not phase.
Thanks — fixed!
What leans me Collins is that, while Trump personally couldn't be worse, the situation could be. Courts could be more deferential. Indeed, impossible as it may seem, Congress could be more deferential. I think people don't take time in these comparisons to look at Collins's voting record as an aspect of her character. They should. It is. She has been reneging on her political and civic duty as a member of Congress to guard its prerogatives against an imperialist President. That's a character issue.
But. Trump really has been stopped from a lot of crap, and we need to be prepared for a post-Trump world. That includes, like the state GOPers who refuse to gerrymander, maybe taking a hit for the good of civic decency.
RE: this guy (David Costello) is running
A calm, articulate, hate and hyperbole-free 60 second campaign ad sans idiocy or even a good conspiracy theory - and with fully zipped trousers to boot?!
Are you actually entertaining the notion that *this* guy might somehow be qualified for a seat in the U.S. Senate and that the good people of Maine should think about voting for *him* rather than that other nut?
Are *you* nuts?
That's the kind of hopium-smoking self-delusional wishcasting that could be the very death of 21st century American politics as we know it if somehow it ever caught on to any degree and started to spread, and which would, among countless other malign consequences, likely put a whole lot of otherwise good and decent comedians out of work for lack of material.
Get a grip, Jeff. That's just the kind of voting against one's own self-interest that got us all here in the first place.